Timothy W. Cutler

Promoting access and reducing expected out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries: a pharmacist-directed model.

BackgroundThe Medicare Part D benefit is complicated and may be costly, especially for vulnerable low-income populations where lack of resources and limited English proficiency may be barriers to optimal plan selection. ObjectivesTo identify vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries and lower their expected annual out-of-pocket (OOP) prescription drug costs through one-on-one prescription drug plan counseling by pharmacists and trained pharmacy students. Research DesignBetween October 2008 and January 2010, a cross-sectional study was performed throughout California. Using Medicares Prescription Drug Plan Finder tool, expected annual OOP costs for each beneficiarys current prescription drug plan were compared with the lowest-cost plan. SubjectsThe study sample included vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes ⩽300% of the Federal Poverty Level. ResultsThere were 1300 vulnerable beneficiaries who received counseling at 94 outreach events. Only 29% of beneficiaries with a stand-alone Part D prescription drug plan were enrolled in the lowest-cost plan. On the basis of counseling recommendations, 390 beneficiaries changed to the lowest-cost Part D plan on site, reducing their expected OOP costs by 68%. Additionally, 72 beneficiaries were identified as eligible for but not receiving low-income subsidy benefits and 55 received assistance with the online application for the subsidy. ConclusionsFindings show that targeted outreach by trained pharmacy advocates can identify vulnerable Medicare populations in need of Part D counseling and reduce their expected annual OOP prescription drug costs.

Prescriber Compliance with a New Computerized Insulin Guideline for Noncritically Ill Adults

BACKGROUND: In March 2008, the University of California, Davis Medical Center (UCDMC), implemented a guideline for the inpatient management of diabetes in noncritically ill adults. In accordance with national guidelines, all patients with type 2 diabetes are prescribed basal, nutritional, and correctional insulin. The guideline was added to the electronic medical record as a standardized physician order set in April 2008 and provider training on the insulin guideline occurred in May 2008. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate provider compliance with a new electronic standardized insulin order set in a hospital setting. METHODS: All patients with insulin orders admitted to the general internal medicine service between June 1, 2008, and November 1, 2008, were evaluated in this single-center retrospective chart review at UCDMC in Sacramento. Patients older than 18 years with a history of type 2 diabetes were included in the analysis. Insulin orders were categorized as preferred (followed the guideline) or nonpreferred regimens (did not follow all components of the guideline). RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were identified during the study period. The preferred regimen was ordered in 82 (30.9%) of the evaluated patient admissions. Of the 183 (69.1%) nonpreferred regimens, more than half (54.6%) contained correctional insulin alone; 84.2% of patient admissions prescribed nonpreferred regimens lacked nutritional insulin. Average admission blood glucose readings were higher in the preferred versus nonpreferred regimen group (224.4 vs 164.8 mg/dL, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The preferred regimen was not prescribed for the majority of patients admitted with a history of type 2 diabetes, despite computerized decision support. Nutritional insulin was the most common missing component in the nonpreferred regimens. Baseline clinical factors, educational modalities, and guideline content may have influenced prescribing patterns.

Practical pearls for a successful residency project

The first few months of a postgraduate year 1 or postgraduate year 2 residency can be challenging for new residents, preceptors, and institutions. For the resident, each year brings new people to meet, state licensing examinations to complete, orientation to the program and site, and new electronic

Incorporating Health Information Technology and Pharmacy Informatics in a Pharmacy Professional Didactic Curriculum -with a Team-based Learning Approach

Objective. To incorporate a pharmacy informatics program in the didactic curriculum of a team-based learning institution and to assess students’ knowledge of and confidence with health informatics during the course. Design. A previously developed online pharmacy informatics course was adapted and implemented into a team-based learning (TBL) 3-credit-hour drug information course for doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) students in their second didactic year. During a period of five weeks (15 contact hours), students used the online pharmacy informatics modules as part of their readiness assurance process. Additional material was developed to comply with the TBL principles. Online pre/postsurveys were administered to evaluate knowledge gained and students’ perceptions of the informatics program. Assessment. Eighty-three second-year students (84% response rate) completed the surveys. Participants’ knowledge of electronic health records, computerized physician order entry, pharmacy information systems, and clinical decision support was significantly improved. Additionally, their confidence significantly improved in terms of describing health informatics terminology, describing the benefits and barriers of using health information technology, and understanding reasons for systematically processing health information. Conclusion. Students responded favorably to the incorporation of pharmacy informatics content into a drug information course using a TBL approach. Students met the learning objectives of seven thematic areas and had positive attitudes toward the course after its completion.

Managing Polypharmacy in the 15-Minute Office Visit.

Polypharmacy is an underappreciated factor in undesirable patient outcomes. In older adults, polypharmacy is considered a syndrome of harm and presents a challenge to primary care providers. The United States has one of the highest medication use rates per capita in the world. With the aging population, and polypharmacy a significant part of the lives of older adults, management of polypharmacy poses both a growing challenge and an opportunity for all health care providers. This article provides an overview of skills to improve medication use management in older adults living with polypharmacy.

The Effect of Clinical Pharmacist-Led Comprehensive Medication Management on Chronic Disease State Goal Attainment in a Patient-Centered Medical Home

BACKGROUND Clinical pharmacy services were initiated at 7 of 11 clinics within a primary care network (PCN), which was designated as a patient-centered medical home and was affiliated with a large academic medical center in October 2014. The goal of the service was to target patients with uncontrolled chronic conditions, specifically diabetes. Patients met with a clinical pharmacist through individual clinic and telephonic appointments, in addition to usual appointments with physicians as needed. While managing patients with diabetes, many clinicians assess a patients hemoglobin A1c (A1c), along with blood pressure and cholesterol, as indicators of disease state control and cardiovascular risk. These 3 parameters were combined into a bundled response score (BRS) in order to assess whether the addition of the clinical pharmacy service had a positive effect on patient therapeutic goal attainment rates for these areas. OBJECTIVES To assess the effect of pharmacist-led comprehensive medication management (CMM) on therapeutic goal attainment rates for glycemic, blood pressure, and dyslipidemia outcomes in PCN patients, which was represented by a BRS based on how many therapeutic goals were met. METHODS This retrospective study was conducted using patients seen in clinics within the PCN between October 1, 2014, and October 31, 2015. Patients were included in the intervention group if they were actively managed by a PCN pharmacist and had a diagnosis of diabetes. A control group included patients without access to a PCN pharmacist and was matched to the intervention group by baseline A1c results. Based on current clinical practice guidelines, therapeutic goals for the BRS were set as A1c ≤ 8%, blood pressure ≤ 140/90 mmHg, and prescription of a moderate- to high-intensity statin for dyslipidemia. In addition to the primary outcome, the individual components of the BRS were assessed, as well as the average number of medications used between groups. RESULTS There were 95 patients included in the intervention group, with 132 patients included in the usual care group. Patients in the intervention group had significantly higher rates of therapeutic goal attainment for the 3 endpoints (40% vs. 12%, P < 0.001). The intervention group had statistically significantly higher improvements in the individual areas of A1c, blood pressure, and statin goal attainment. There were no significant differences in the number of medications for diabetes or antihypertensive medications used between groups at the time of study termination. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that the addition of CMM services provided by clinical pharmacists in this PCN had a positive effect on therapeutic goal attainment rates for patients with diabetes. This finding suggests that the integration of clinical pharmacists into primary care clinics could have positive effects on the clinical outcomes of diabetic patients in glycemic control, blood pressure, and statin treatment, in accordance with current guidelines. DISCLOSURES Support for this study was provided to Wilson by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through grant number ULI TR001860. The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have nothing additional to disclose.

Impact of pharmacy intervention on prior authorization success and efficiency at a university medical center

BACKGROUND Prior authorizations (PAs) may improve appropriate use of prescription medications. Despite potential savings for health insurance plans, the PA process is time consuming for the ordering provider, pharmacy, and patient. The UC Davis Health System (UCDHS) has created a centralized pharmacy-run clinic PA process. OBJECTIVE To compare the mean PA processing time between the new centralized clinic and usual care and provide secondary endpoints for PA approval rates, time to prescription fill, time to prescription pick-up, total staff time, and estimated labor costs. METHODS This is a prospective observational study comparing sequential PA requests at the UCDHS centralized clinic (intervention) and other UCDHS clinics (usual care) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to compare dichotomous outcomes (approval/denial rates) between the 2 groups, controlling for insurance type. A generalized linear model was applied for comparing the continuous outcomes (PA process time, time to first fill, time to pick-up, and cost) with insurance type as covariate. RESULTS For the intervention group, 47 PAs were evaluated, and 77 PAs were evaluated in the usual care group. The average PA process time was 0.53 days for the intervention group versus 7.02 days for usual care (P < 0.001), and the PA approval rate was 93% for the intervention group versus 68% for usual care (P < 0.002). The mean time to fill was 2.49 days and 5.52 days for the intervention and usual care clinics, respectively (P = 0.02). The pick-up percentage was 75% versus 52% for intervention and usual care, respectively (P < 0.001). The intervention clinic spent a significantly lower mean time processing PAs (15 minutes vs. 64 minutes) compared with the usual care clinics (P < 0.001). It is estimated that the mean total labor cost per PA at the intervention clinic was

Evaluation of the Relationship Between a Chronic Disease Care Management Program and California Pay-for-Performance Diabetes Care Cholesterol Measures in One Medical Group

11.50 compared with

Cost Minimization of Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plan Expenditures

37.50 for the usual care clinics (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Pharmacy-led interventions in PA processing resulted in a statistically significant benefit in improving time to PA approval, time to first fill, and time to pick-up. DISCLOSURES No outside funding supported this study. The authors report no conflicting interests. Melnikow and Cutler contributed the study concept and design, with assistance from the other authors. Lester, Barca, and She collected the data, and Xin performed all statistical analysis. Cutler was the major contributor to manuscript preparation, with assistance from the other authors.